SH 222 

.ri3 D4 
Copy 1 



SOME REASONS FOR FAILURE OF FISH PROTECTIVE 
LEGISLATION AND SOME SUGGESTED REMEDIES 

By Oregon Milton Dennis 
Former State Game Warden of Maiyland 

J- 

Address before the Fourth International Fishery Congress 
held at Washington, U. S. A., September 22 to 26, 1 908 

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES : : VOL. XXVIII. P. 187-192 
Document No. 650 ::;:::::;:::::::; Issued January, 1910 



187 



'V 



5^V^^ 



FEB 4 1910 






SOME REASONS FOR FAILURE OF FISH PROTECTIVE 
LEGISLATION AND SOME SUGGESTED REMEDIES. 



By OREGON MILTON DENNIS, 
Former State Game Warden of Maryland. 

Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen: In speaking on this subject I 
want it distinctly understood in the beginning that, while my language will 
appear to be harsh and my criticism severe with reference to some causes for 
the failure of the passage of proper and effective fish protective legislation, I am 
dealing with this subject in generalities, and without particular reference to any 
person or protective association. I have come to the conclusions which follow 
after very mature deliberation, and shall deal with this, as I have with every 
other matter with which I have had to do, in an honest and fearless manner, 
my sole purpose being to aid in fish protection and to point out some of the 
reasons why it has failed. A long experience as secretary and counsel of a 
large protective association and as the state game warden of Maryland, as 
well as my legislative experience, has, I believe, fully qualified me to express 
some opinions on the subject-matter of this paper. Of course, this experience 
has been gained in my own state, and what I shall say will deal largely with 
the conditions in that state. 

The political division of Maryland through the representation of county 
members in the legislature places the control of legislation within the power 
of the counties ; notwithstanding the fact that while about one-half of the popu- 
lation is centered in Baltimore city the latter has only about one-fourth of the 
delegates. I mention this because protective influences originate very largely in 
the city, and the state's chief protective association is there, composed of men 
who, whether intelligently or not, frame the bills that are presented to the legis- 
lature for action. I say inteUigently, because while this association includes some 
of the wealthiest and best of our citizens, its enthusiasm for protection of both 
game and fish and the bills framed by it are largely based on the selfish rea- 
sons of sportsmen, and largely without regard to intelligent conclusions with 
reference to the rights of the commercial fishermen, whose vote is sufficiently 
large in tide-water sections of our state to control the electorate. This being 

189 



igo BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

true, the county members of the legislature, as well as the fishermen themselves, 
look with suspicion upon any measure presented to the legislature which has for 
its purpose the protection of fish and game when such measure is presented by 
city men. 

Growing out of this condition (about two years ago) a fishermen's protective 
association was formed in Maryland for the distinct purpose of fighting the city 
association, on the ground that the latter was unfair and that its only interest 
in protection, it was believed, was to secure to the angler a good day's fishing 
without regard to the commercial fisherman's interest. This condition grew 
out of a policy of the game protective association of introducing measures 
abolishing the use of all sorts of nets, or so restricting their use that the com- 
mercial fisherman would be put out of business. I am happy to say, however, 
that during the past year, I believe largely through my own efforts as state 
game warden, the two associations have united on a number of measures for 
fish protection, though without specific results. 

Unfortunately, the selfish interest of one class and the suspicions of another 
are largely the reason for the failure of proper fish protective legislation. The 
angler goes to the legislature with a bill based on his idea of what the law should 
be, and that idea is usually the prohibition of the use of all sorts of nets which 
will interfere with his sport; an other class, the commercial fishermen, prepare 
a bill to protect them in the use of the sort of nets with which they fish, and still 
another set of fishermen have a bill to protect them in their method. The 
result is that the legislative committee before whom these bills go is pulled and 
hauled and besieged and worked upon by the various interests to such an extent 
that it becomes disgusted and pigeonholes all the bills, so that none is passed. 

Another reason is that while the state of Maryland spends thousands of 
dollars for fish culture it persistently refuses to make any appropriation for, or to 
give the state warden department any material assistance in, the enforcement 
of such laws as we now have ; and while the state navy is charged by law to 
enforce the laws for fish protection, the character of its boats prevents them from 
going into shallow waters to do any work even if time permitted to divert the 
boats from oyster protection to do this. 

What I have said above is but the foundation for specific reasons which I 
shall give for failure of protective legislation, and which in myopinion can be 
reduced to the following, to wit: 

1 . Up to this time it has been absolutely impossible to get the tide-water 
fishermen to agree on any bills, and, in my judgment, even if proper laws 
were enacted, under the system in our state they would absolutely fail of 
enforcement. 

2. I declare, next to the above reason, that the greatest reason for non- 
passage of fish protective bills is the action and influence of the duck gunners 



FISH PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION. I91 

of Maryland, who, either by purchase or by lease, secure absolute control of water 
fronts in the tide-water counties for their ducking clubs and shooting grounds. 
These gentlemen, among the fortmost citizens of our state, and largely residents 
of the city, are jealous of the rights that they claim they have paid for, and in 
order that they may preserve them are in constant conflict with the resident 
fishermen, who ply their industry in the waters fronting or adjacent to these 
shores. Against these men of Wealth and influence there is small opportunity 
to prevail with the legislators when there is a conflict between the rights of the 
duckers and the fishermen. 

There are a number of other reasons which, in my opinion, prevent the 
passage of proper fish protective laws, but these are sufficient for my purpose. 

Now as to the remedy. I shall oflfer but one, but I think it will be suf- 
ficiently radical to bring down on my head all the knocks that I can stand up 
under. You will remember that I made this suggestion at the last annual meet- 
ing of the American Fisheries Society: 

Admitting the necessity for protection of young fish after they have been 
placed in the waters by the States and the. United States, the question that 
confronts us is, how? I believe that, if it comes within the constitutional powers 
of the Government, Congress should pass proper interstate laws for the protec- 
tion of fish. 

Thousands of dollars are being spent, practically wasted, for fish propaga- 
tion in Maryland. The state has persistently neglected to provide for protec- 
tion. Not until after fifty years of constant agitation and the practical exter- 
mination, commercially, of the oyster, has Maryland been awakened (and that 
but two years ago) to the fact that the oyster in Maryland must be protected 
or exterminated. If it has taken this long to awaken to the serious condition 
of the oyster, how long will it take to recognize the necessity for the protection 
of the fish, and thus save to the people of our own state and other communities 
and from extermination one of the greatest natural food products of the world? 

Mr. Bryan, at the conference of the governors of the states held in May 
last in Washington, had this to say with reference to the protection of the great 
natural resources of the country — that he regarded "the development of water 
transportation as essentially a national project, because the water courses run 
by and through many states." In my judgment it is just as important for the 
National Government to protect the natural industry which has its life and 
being as a food product in and under the waters of this countrv as it is to enlarge 
and protect the waterways for the carrying away from and bringing to us the 
great commerce of the world. I believe it more important, because the products 
of the water provided food to man long before he thought of the creation of 
great fortunes by the use of water courses for commercial purposes. 



192 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

I am a state's rights man, and am jealous of any action of the National 
Government which would deprive the state of a single right. But when I con- 
sider that the great bodies of water which produce natural food run through 
and by different states; when I consider that petty political influences, jeal- 
ousies, and other equally silly reasons prevent a state from protecting from 
extermination a natural food product, I am convinced that the only solution of 
this question is in rational control of the fish by the Federal Government. 
I hope this congress will put itself on record to that end, for I believe that not 
until this is done and the Federal Government legislates for fish protection and 
supplies its powerful backing to the enforcement of such laws will the question 
of fish protection be solved. 



%' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 870 240 1 



# 






